+AJPM+
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
June is going to be a big month on this blog, with covering all the ways pro-gay marriage people have their facts wrong, to what really goes on and what is really promoted (and what is not allowed to be promoted) at gay pride parades.
June is also the month dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and how shameful it is that we no longer think of it that way.
So I have a schedule put together of what I want to cover and on what day. I'm not going to put it on here now because there might be updates I need to include, breaking news, or I might decide to do something else related to the overall theme.
In general, count on videos and well-researched articles about how evil the gay rights movement is, except on Fridays when I'll cover teachings concerning the Sacred Heart.
Stay in touch for all upcoming posts!!
“the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.”- Ven Arch Fulton Sheen
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Why Atheist's Claims about what the Bible Says Never Actually Work
+AJPM+
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
It happens eventually while arguing with atheists….you tell them about the Bible and all the valuable teachings in it, but then the atheist chimes in with a phrase like this:
"The Bible says slavery is okay. I don't want anything to do with a book like that."
While the atheist will act smug in their declaration, every Christian will hear that and say "Huh?", never knowing what the atheist is talking about. Of course the atheist will then bombard the Christian with verses that they think prove their point and often the Christian is at a loss for words. I myself have come across atheists that claim this and recently argued with a few who say rape is okay according to the Bible.
Let's ignore for a moment that the atheist doesn't have anything in atheism that says slavery (or rape) is wrong other than their own opinion (which is all atheists have for their objections---JUST their opinion) and let's instead focus on why there's such a disconnect that prevents atheists form understanding the truth.
As I said before, I've argued with atheists on this and like many apologists, I thought the best method was to point out the verses being used to justify slavery were all under the OT covenant and we're not under that covenant anymore. However, this backfired every time I tried it because the atheist either:
a) misinterpreted what I was saying, believed I was picking and choosing what verses I wanted to follow, and therefore I shouldn't have problems with them picking and choosing whether to believe in God or
b) pointed out the NT mentions slavery and doesn't condemn it.
Being humble enough to admit my tactics weren't working, I tried to come up with a different approach. Then while studying verses one night, I came across two particular verses that I have used ever since whenever an atheist tries this and they work every single time.
What are these two verses?
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)
So how do they work? Simple: I point out to the atheist these two verses show you are not free to interpret verses by yourself; only the Church founded by Christ has that authority. So, therefore, if your interpretation is different from the Church's, then you are wrong. Plain and simple.
Quick side note: when trying this yourself, be ready for the following objection:
"So you mean to tell me your church put the Bible together, they decided what books should go in, they said no more could be added and they alone have the authority to say what a verse means? And you don't find this the least bit suspicious?"
A common rebuttal I use goes something like this:
"It's no different than the state saying they alone will print money, they will set the standards of authenticity, and they will set the conversion rates between dollars and coins. You don't seem to have a problem with that."
Notice how they want us to pay attention to the fact this is just our interpretation but want us to ignore them saying it's our interpretation is in and of itself their interpretation, and where would that get us?
So, now let's put this together into a simple, easy-to-remember three step process:
1. Point out to the atheist they are not free to interpret the Bible for themselves.
If they still insist they should be, point out to them even a eunuch was humble enough to admit they needed help understanding a verse.
2. Point out only the Catholic Church has the authority to say what a verse means.
This will not only give you the edge in saying what the Church does teach about a verse but it will also make it clear to the atheist you don't care about the opinion of non-Catholic churches in case they try the "two pastors of different denominations can't agree. Why should I trust you?"
This in no way means the Church doesn't use outside sources for their stand..it's just that they have the final word on what something means.
3. Ask the atheist what Bible translation they're using.
I know this sounds like a moot point but it matters how you phrase something and what words you use, as not all words have the same meaning or connotation. In fact, not all Bible versions have the same number of verses per chapter.
So the atheist claims a verse says one thing but your version says something else, that's most likely the reason why. Personally, unless they flat out state what version they're using, I'd stick with either the D-R or the Vulgate.
Remember: atheists must never be given any wiggle room to let their poison in…who would want poison from idiots like atheists?
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
It happens eventually while arguing with atheists….you tell them about the Bible and all the valuable teachings in it, but then the atheist chimes in with a phrase like this:
"The Bible says slavery is okay. I don't want anything to do with a book like that."
While the atheist will act smug in their declaration, every Christian will hear that and say "Huh?", never knowing what the atheist is talking about. Of course the atheist will then bombard the Christian with verses that they think prove their point and often the Christian is at a loss for words. I myself have come across atheists that claim this and recently argued with a few who say rape is okay according to the Bible.
Let's ignore for a moment that the atheist doesn't have anything in atheism that says slavery (or rape) is wrong other than their own opinion (which is all atheists have for their objections---JUST their opinion) and let's instead focus on why there's such a disconnect that prevents atheists form understanding the truth.
As I said before, I've argued with atheists on this and like many apologists, I thought the best method was to point out the verses being used to justify slavery were all under the OT covenant and we're not under that covenant anymore. However, this backfired every time I tried it because the atheist either:
a) misinterpreted what I was saying, believed I was picking and choosing what verses I wanted to follow, and therefore I shouldn't have problems with them picking and choosing whether to believe in God or
b) pointed out the NT mentions slavery and doesn't condemn it.
Being humble enough to admit my tactics weren't working, I tried to come up with a different approach. Then while studying verses one night, I came across two particular verses that I have used ever since whenever an atheist tries this and they work every single time.
What are these two verses?
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)
So how do they work? Simple: I point out to the atheist these two verses show you are not free to interpret verses by yourself; only the Church founded by Christ has that authority. So, therefore, if your interpretation is different from the Church's, then you are wrong. Plain and simple.
Quick side note: when trying this yourself, be ready for the following objection:
"So you mean to tell me your church put the Bible together, they decided what books should go in, they said no more could be added and they alone have the authority to say what a verse means? And you don't find this the least bit suspicious?"
A common rebuttal I use goes something like this:
"It's no different than the state saying they alone will print money, they will set the standards of authenticity, and they will set the conversion rates between dollars and coins. You don't seem to have a problem with that."
Notice how they want us to pay attention to the fact this is just our interpretation but want us to ignore them saying it's our interpretation is in and of itself their interpretation, and where would that get us?
So, now let's put this together into a simple, easy-to-remember three step process:
1. Point out to the atheist they are not free to interpret the Bible for themselves.
If they still insist they should be, point out to them even a eunuch was humble enough to admit they needed help understanding a verse.
2. Point out only the Catholic Church has the authority to say what a verse means.
This will not only give you the edge in saying what the Church does teach about a verse but it will also make it clear to the atheist you don't care about the opinion of non-Catholic churches in case they try the "two pastors of different denominations can't agree. Why should I trust you?"
This in no way means the Church doesn't use outside sources for their stand..it's just that they have the final word on what something means.
3. Ask the atheist what Bible translation they're using.
I know this sounds like a moot point but it matters how you phrase something and what words you use, as not all words have the same meaning or connotation. In fact, not all Bible versions have the same number of verses per chapter.
So the atheist claims a verse says one thing but your version says something else, that's most likely the reason why. Personally, unless they flat out state what version they're using, I'd stick with either the D-R or the Vulgate.
Remember: atheists must never be given any wiggle room to let their poison in…who would want poison from idiots like atheists?
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Time to Send the Kids off to a REAL Catholic College!!
+AJPM+
The Angel Possenti:
It's that time of year for graduation…time to send the kids off the college and have them explore the world….
unless you're a Catholic parent, in which case you dread sending the kids off, not because you have no idea how to pay for it but because you wonder whether they will come still Catholic.
Sure, we've all heard the horror stories about "supposedly" Catholic colleges, from the Georgetowns that have active LGBT groups on campus, to the Fordhams that barely teach the faith to the Notre Dames that give honorary degrees to known abortion supporters to other campuses who boo nuns off stage for having the audacity of teaching actual truths of the Church.
So what is a parent to do?
Luckily, a group called the Cardinal Newman Society puts together a guide for those schools who claim to be Catholic and actually teach the faith.
Now, keep in mind a good majority of both Catholics and even non-Catholic Americans have never heard of any of these colleges, which is why each school in the following list will have links embedded in their names to learn more about each campus.
So, without further delay, here are the schools in the U.S. which have the Cardinal Newman Society seal of approval:
-Aquinas College (Tennessee)
-Ave Maria University
-Belmont Abbey College
-Benedictine College
-The Catholic University of America
-Christendom College
-DeSales University
-Franciscan University of Steubenville
-John Paul the Great Catholic University
-Mount St. Mary's University
-Providence College
-St. Gregory's University
-The College of Saint Mary Magdalen
-The College of Saints John Fisher & Thomas More (aka Fisher/More College)*
(* As of this writing, Fisher/More cannot accept any new students on their physical campus because of financial problems)
-Thomas Aquinas College
-Thomas More College of Liberal Arts
-University of Dallas
-University of St. Thomas (Texas)
-Wyoming Catholic College
Quick disclosure: I am an alumni of one of these colleges. I will not say which one because I have ticked off enough atheists that they have now threatened my life, but I thank God every day I went to a school that did not threaten my faith and I feel sorry for all those students who go where their faith is under attack every day.
One other note: parents and students are now both becoming concerned about rising tuition costs, not wanting to be burdened with debt all their lives. I am not that far removed from college life myself, so believe me when I say the costs of all these schools are far lower than all the big name colleges.
Now, what if the student has been accepted into a Catholic college but it's not one of the ones on the list? What can be done then?
1. Make sure the school is not Jesuit run.
Yes, I know Pope Francis is a Jesuit but that doesn't change the fact not one school in America endorsed by the Newman Society is Jesuit run. In fact, each and every faith-traitor can trace itself to a Jesuit school.
2. When it comes to the religious graduation requirements, see if you can get away with not taking the comparative religion classes.
You know what comparative religion classes say? "All religions are the same." If you have to take them, try to sign up to Dr Scott Hahn's online course concerning Catholicism. Here's a link.
3. If you've already been accepted and neither part of 2 is available, look for either Benedictine, Dominican or an Opus Dei run center.
4. Check to see if the school offers Latin Masses and if they don't, petition for it. If the petition doesn't work, find somewhere that does.
Keeping the faith alive takes work but if we don't stand up for ours, someone else will stand up for theirs.
Would you like that other to be atheists? Because atheists are idiots.
The Angel Possenti:
It's that time of year for graduation…time to send the kids off the college and have them explore the world….
unless you're a Catholic parent, in which case you dread sending the kids off, not because you have no idea how to pay for it but because you wonder whether they will come still Catholic.
Sure, we've all heard the horror stories about "supposedly" Catholic colleges, from the Georgetowns that have active LGBT groups on campus, to the Fordhams that barely teach the faith to the Notre Dames that give honorary degrees to known abortion supporters to other campuses who boo nuns off stage for having the audacity of teaching actual truths of the Church.
So what is a parent to do?
Luckily, a group called the Cardinal Newman Society puts together a guide for those schools who claim to be Catholic and actually teach the faith.
Now, keep in mind a good majority of both Catholics and even non-Catholic Americans have never heard of any of these colleges, which is why each school in the following list will have links embedded in their names to learn more about each campus.
So, without further delay, here are the schools in the U.S. which have the Cardinal Newman Society seal of approval:
-Aquinas College (Tennessee)
-Ave Maria University
-Belmont Abbey College
-Benedictine College
-The Catholic University of America
-Christendom College
-DeSales University
-Franciscan University of Steubenville
-John Paul the Great Catholic University
-Mount St. Mary's University
-Providence College
-St. Gregory's University
-The College of Saint Mary Magdalen
-The College of Saints John Fisher & Thomas More (aka Fisher/More College)*
(* As of this writing, Fisher/More cannot accept any new students on their physical campus because of financial problems)
-Thomas Aquinas College
-Thomas More College of Liberal Arts
-University of Dallas
-University of St. Thomas (Texas)
-Wyoming Catholic College
Quick disclosure: I am an alumni of one of these colleges. I will not say which one because I have ticked off enough atheists that they have now threatened my life, but I thank God every day I went to a school that did not threaten my faith and I feel sorry for all those students who go where their faith is under attack every day.
One other note: parents and students are now both becoming concerned about rising tuition costs, not wanting to be burdened with debt all their lives. I am not that far removed from college life myself, so believe me when I say the costs of all these schools are far lower than all the big name colleges.
Now, what if the student has been accepted into a Catholic college but it's not one of the ones on the list? What can be done then?
1. Make sure the school is not Jesuit run.
Yes, I know Pope Francis is a Jesuit but that doesn't change the fact not one school in America endorsed by the Newman Society is Jesuit run. In fact, each and every faith-traitor can trace itself to a Jesuit school.
2. When it comes to the religious graduation requirements, see if you can get away with not taking the comparative religion classes.
You know what comparative religion classes say? "All religions are the same." If you have to take them, try to sign up to Dr Scott Hahn's online course concerning Catholicism. Here's a link.
3. If you've already been accepted and neither part of 2 is available, look for either Benedictine, Dominican or an Opus Dei run center.
4. Check to see if the school offers Latin Masses and if they don't, petition for it. If the petition doesn't work, find somewhere that does.
Keeping the faith alive takes work but if we don't stand up for ours, someone else will stand up for theirs.
Would you like that other to be atheists? Because atheists are idiots.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
The Ultimate Contradiction
And now, the top ten dumber than having an atheist as a chaplain. Unlike other top ten, these are neither in any particular order nor is one dumber than the other in any objective sense so keep that in mind while reading this.
So, what is dumber than having an atheist as a chaplain?
-having a fox guard a chicken coup
-having feces on top of a wedding cake
-letting go of term limits on the president of the US
- saying “personally I’m against it, but I don’t want to impose my beliefs on others.”
-equating being anti-gay with being racist
-thinking a little adultery isn't going to hurt anybody
-being strapped for cash but spending what little spare money you have on lotto tickets
-claiming to be tolerant but not letting people who disagree with you inside your country
Monday, May 12, 2014
Faith Quickies
+AJPM+
In a recent broadcast of his radio show, Michael Savage joked that if Pope Francis was serious about wealth distribution, then the Pope should sell the Sistine Chapel ceiling to him for one million dollars.
Where to begin with how stupid this proposal is?
-Does he have any idea what the appraised value is? Somehow I doubt it, but it’s higher than 1 million.
-Is he aware no one in the Vatican has authorization to sell that ceiling? Mostly because the Sistine Chapel is to the Vatican what the White House is to the US.
-Does he have any idea how much restoration costs would be?
-If he has a million dollars to blow on artwork, then doesn’t that mean he has his own wealth to redistribute first?
------------------------------
The St Louis Rams recently drafted the first openly gay NFL player and the media keeps showing the video of him kissing his “lover.”
Now I am not so naïve to think the NFL is a bastion of family values, but I do know football players are quite religious and have teammates from different backgrounds and denominations. So, one would think the NFL of all groups would be tolerant (there’s that word again) of people who don’t agree with their view.
No surprise then they reprimanded and are now thinking of fining another player who tweeted his disapproval.
Now articles are appearing that say this is going to “redefine masculinity” in pro-football.
Are they nuts or do they not understand what masculinity means? For our purposes, the root of the word came from a Latin phrase referring to the form and traits men were expected to have. Even today, we have expectations of what a man is, despite what feminism wants us to believe. So how are we going to explain to an impressionable child who follows this player on Twitter, finds this out about him and want to imitate him?
Today at Harvard, the school will host its first ever Satanic mass, fresh off the erection of a satanic monument in Oklahoma City.
I never thought I’d have to post about something like this, but one day I will put together a post about the evils of Satanism (no conspiracy theories, I assure you) so for now let me ask this:
Why is it okay to have this type of event at Harvard when you can’t say the phrase “man up” because someone might be offended by it?
For that matter, why is any sane parent even thinking of sending their kids to Harvard?
In yet another case of gay activists not giving a crap about people who disagree with them, a judge in Arkansas has overturned the state amendment banning same-sex marriage. Sure, the amendment was voted on by the people but since when have activists ever cared when the vote doesn’t go their way?
No surprise here: the judge that made the ruling is a registered Democrat.
Then again, this shouldn’t surprise me at all considering the type of state Arkansas is. Sure, it’s in the Bible Belt, but since Protestantism reigns, then everyone has their own view of God’s word with no objective check on it.
If there is no objective check, what’s to stop someone from ignoring the verses against homosexuality? It’s their interpretation and they’re free to have their own view, right?
Monday, May 5, 2014
Supreme Court Calls BS on "Prayer Offends Me"
+AJPM+
High Court Ruling Favors Prayer at Council Meeting
Prayers that open town council meetings do not violate the Constitution even if they routinely stress Christianity, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court said in 5-4 decision that the content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or proselytize.
The ruling by the court's conservative majority was a victory for the town of Greece, N.Y., outside of Rochester. The Obama administration sided with the town.
In 1983, the court upheld an opening prayer in the Nebraska legislature and said that prayer is part of the nation's fabric, not a violation of the First Amendment. Monday's ruling was consistent with the earlier one.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation's traditions.
"The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers," Kennedy said.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court's four liberal justices, said, "I respectfully dissent from the Court's opinion because I think the Town of Greece's prayer practices violate that norm of religious equality — the breathtakingly generous constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian."
Kagan said the case differs significantly from the 1983 decision because "Greece's town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given — directly to those citizens — were predominantly sectarian in content."
A federal appeals court in New York ruled that Greece violated the Constitution by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity.
From 1999 through 2007, and again from January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a Christian-oriented invocation. In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha'i congregation.
A town employee each month selected clerics or lay people by using a local published guide of churches. The guide did not include non-Christian denominations, however. The appeals court found that religious institutions in the town of just under 100,000 people are primarily Christian, and even Galloway and Stephens testified they knew of no non-Christian places of worship there.
The two residents filed suit and a trial court ruled in the town's favor, finding that the town did not intentionally exclude non-Christians. It also said that the content of the prayer was not an issue because there was no desire to proselytize or demean other faiths.
But a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that even with the high court's 1983 ruling, the practice of having one Christian prayer after another amounted to the town's endorsement of Christianity.
Kennedy, however, said judges should not be involved in evaluating the content of prayer because it could lead to legislatures requiring "chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere."
He added, "Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy."
Kennedy himself was the author an opinion in 1992 that held that a Christian prayer delivered at a high school graduation did violate the Constitution. The justice said Monday there are differences between the two situations, including the age of the audience and the fact that attendees at the council meeting may step out of the room if they do not like the prayer.
Kennedy and his four colleagues in the majority all are Catholic. They are: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In her dissent, Kagan said the council meeting prayers are unlike those said to open sessions of Congress and state legislatures, where elected officials are the intended audience. In Greece, "the prayers there are directed squarely at the citizens," she said. Kagan was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Of the four, three are Jewish and Sotomayor is Catholic.
Kagan also noted what she described as the meetings' intimate setting, with 10 or so people sitting in front of the town's elected and top appointed officials. Children and teenagers are likely to be present, she said.
The case is Greece v. Galloway, 12-696
(For a link, click here.)
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
So now what, atheists? You can't play the "prayer is offensive" card ever again. There goes one of your key weapons.
High Court Ruling Favors Prayer at Council Meeting
Supreme Court says Christian prayers to open council meetings don't violate Constitution
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON
Prayers that open town council meetings do not violate the Constitution even if they routinely stress Christianity, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court said in 5-4 decision that the content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or proselytize.
The ruling by the court's conservative majority was a victory for the town of Greece, N.Y., outside of Rochester. The Obama administration sided with the town.
In 1983, the court upheld an opening prayer in the Nebraska legislature and said that prayer is part of the nation's fabric, not a violation of the First Amendment. Monday's ruling was consistent with the earlier one.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the prayers are ceremonial and in keeping with the nation's traditions.
"The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers," Kennedy said.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court's four liberal justices, said, "I respectfully dissent from the Court's opinion because I think the Town of Greece's prayer practices violate that norm of religious equality — the breathtakingly generous constitutional idea that our public institutions belong no less to the Buddhist or Hindu than to the Methodist or Episcopalian."
Kagan said the case differs significantly from the 1983 decision because "Greece's town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given — directly to those citizens — were predominantly sectarian in content."
A federal appeals court in New York ruled that Greece violated the Constitution by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity.
From 1999 through 2007, and again from January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a Christian-oriented invocation. In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha'i congregation.
A town employee each month selected clerics or lay people by using a local published guide of churches. The guide did not include non-Christian denominations, however. The appeals court found that religious institutions in the town of just under 100,000 people are primarily Christian, and even Galloway and Stephens testified they knew of no non-Christian places of worship there.
The two residents filed suit and a trial court ruled in the town's favor, finding that the town did not intentionally exclude non-Christians. It also said that the content of the prayer was not an issue because there was no desire to proselytize or demean other faiths.
But a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that even with the high court's 1983 ruling, the practice of having one Christian prayer after another amounted to the town's endorsement of Christianity.
Kennedy, however, said judges should not be involved in evaluating the content of prayer because it could lead to legislatures requiring "chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere."
He added, "Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy."
Kennedy himself was the author an opinion in 1992 that held that a Christian prayer delivered at a high school graduation did violate the Constitution. The justice said Monday there are differences between the two situations, including the age of the audience and the fact that attendees at the council meeting may step out of the room if they do not like the prayer.
Kennedy and his four colleagues in the majority all are Catholic. They are: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In her dissent, Kagan said the council meeting prayers are unlike those said to open sessions of Congress and state legislatures, where elected officials are the intended audience. In Greece, "the prayers there are directed squarely at the citizens," she said. Kagan was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Of the four, three are Jewish and Sotomayor is Catholic.
Kagan also noted what she described as the meetings' intimate setting, with 10 or so people sitting in front of the town's elected and top appointed officials. Children and teenagers are likely to be present, she said.
The case is Greece v. Galloway, 12-696
(For a link, click here.)
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
So now what, atheists? You can't play the "prayer is offensive" card ever again. There goes one of your key weapons.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
If this logic was applied to other things...
+AJPM+
The Angel Possenti:
In my last post, I talked about how the phrase "you can't legislate morality" doesn't make any logical sense in any way, shape or form. Why? Partially because law by its very nature is based on morality--at least in some sense--but mostly because the people who say this are really saying they---and only they--- have the authority to determine what morality is.
The biggest cop-out--or at least one of the biggest cop-outs-- concerning this mindset can be summarized with one sentence. I haven't met anyone who can look me in the eye and say they've never heard this sentence because that's how prevalent this phrase is.
And what is this one sentence? This big-bopper of a cop-out?
"I am personally opposed to [insert issue here], but I don't want to impose my morality on others."
(Note: although this could apply to any issue, most of the time this is used on abortion issues.)
I have never in my life ever thought this notion made any sense…yes, even back when I was weak in belief, I never thought this made sense.
Imagine for a moment if people applied this pseudo-logic to other areas:
-"I should teach my kid 2 +2=4 , but I shouldn't impose my belief on him."
-"I should tell that thief that stealing is wrong, but I shouldn't impose my belief on him."
-"I think people should learn new things, but I shouldn't impose my belief on others."
-"I should teach my two-year old how to use the toilet, but I shouldn't impose my belief on him."
If you're a thick-heaed atheist and still don't see why this doesn't make sense, let me make this even clearer:
1. It is impossible to go through life and not impose anything on anyone.
We all learn and draw conclusions from a variety of sources and each one tries to convince us about the truth.
2. We judge people on what they do, and not what they say they'll do.
99.999 times out of ten, the people who say they don't impose their morality on others go against the very morality they just said they believe. Speaking of which…
3. The supporters of the notion in reality don't believe in the morality they just said they believe in.
4. If it's someone running for public office who says this, they just want power over your life.
Only atheists are dumb enough to believe the notion and atheists are idiots.
The Angel Possenti:
In my last post, I talked about how the phrase "you can't legislate morality" doesn't make any logical sense in any way, shape or form. Why? Partially because law by its very nature is based on morality--at least in some sense--but mostly because the people who say this are really saying they---and only they--- have the authority to determine what morality is.
The biggest cop-out--or at least one of the biggest cop-outs-- concerning this mindset can be summarized with one sentence. I haven't met anyone who can look me in the eye and say they've never heard this sentence because that's how prevalent this phrase is.
And what is this one sentence? This big-bopper of a cop-out?
"I am personally opposed to [insert issue here], but I don't want to impose my morality on others."
(Note: although this could apply to any issue, most of the time this is used on abortion issues.)
I have never in my life ever thought this notion made any sense…yes, even back when I was weak in belief, I never thought this made sense.
Imagine for a moment if people applied this pseudo-logic to other areas:
-"I should teach my kid 2 +2=4 , but I shouldn't impose my belief on him."
-"I should tell that thief that stealing is wrong, but I shouldn't impose my belief on him."
-"I think people should learn new things, but I shouldn't impose my belief on others."
-"I should teach my two-year old how to use the toilet, but I shouldn't impose my belief on him."
If you're a thick-heaed atheist and still don't see why this doesn't make sense, let me make this even clearer:
1. It is impossible to go through life and not impose anything on anyone.
We all learn and draw conclusions from a variety of sources and each one tries to convince us about the truth.
2. We judge people on what they do, and not what they say they'll do.
99.999 times out of ten, the people who say they don't impose their morality on others go against the very morality they just said they believe. Speaking of which…
3. The supporters of the notion in reality don't believe in the morality they just said they believe in.
4. If it's someone running for public office who says this, they just want power over your life.
Only atheists are dumb enough to believe the notion and atheists are idiots.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)